LAKSHMI BANGLE STORES versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 457 · Decided: 06-12-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

LAKSHMI BANGLE STORES 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 6, 1990 
[KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Indian Railways Act: Sections 77-B-Suit for damages for loss of 
goods-Limitation-Starting point of-Whether consignor entitled to 
change value of consigned goods. 
A 
B 
The appellant had booked a Rail-wagon for consignment of hang-
C 
les from Ferozabad to Srikakulam on June 3, 1964. He declared the 
value of the consigned goods as Rs.25,000 The wagon loaded with the 
glass bangles met with an accident on June 22, 1964 and was damaged. 
An open assessment delivery of the goods was made to the appellant on 
September 4, 1964 at the destination. The appellant found that more 
than half of the bangles were damaged. 
D 
The appellant claimed damages ofRs.32869.87 on the ground that 
the actual value of the bangles was Rs.56,837 .04. The respondents con-
tested the claim inter alia on the ground that the appellant could not 
claim damages by enhancing the value of goods. It was also contended 
that the suit having been filed beyond the period of 3 years from the E 
date of accident, when loss to the property occurred, the same was 
barred by limitation under article 10 of the Limitation Act. 
The Trial Court held that counting the period of limitation from 
September 4, 1964, when the extent of loss to the goods was known, the 
suit was within limitation. The Court however dismissed the suit bold-
F 
ing that the respondent was estopped from contending that the value of 
goods was more than the declared amllllnt of Rs.25,000. 
The High Court, in appeal, reversed the findings of the Trial 
Court on the point of limitation as also on valuation. The High Court 
came to the conclusion that the appellant was enlitled to claim the value G 
of the consigned goods as Rs.56,837 .04 and the declaration regarding 
value at the time of booking the consignment was of no consequence. 
The High Court however dismissed the appeal on the ground that the 
suit was barred by limitation. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended before this Court that H 
457 
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
A the counting-point for the limitation purposes bas to be September 4, 
1964. On the other hand, it was contended by the respondents that the 
appellant could not be permitted to go back from the valuation of the 
goods which he declared at the time of booking the consignment. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: (1) The High Court was not justified in relieving the rail-
way administration of its burden to establish that the damage to the 
goods occurred beyond three years from the date of the snit. I 460G] 
Union of India v. Amar Singh, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 75 and Jetmu/l 
C Bhojraj v.Darjeeling Himalyan Railway Company Limited, [1963] 2 
S.C.R. 832, referred to. 
(2) The knowledge of the accident may have given rise to an 
assumption that the goods were damaged in the accident but the burden 
of proving that the damage occurred 3 years beyond the date of suit has 
D to be discharged by the railways. There is no material on the record to 
show that the respondents have done so. The High Court was not 
justified in relieving the railway administration of its bnrden. The find-
ing of the High Court on this issue is, therefore, set aside. [4628-C] 
(3) The appellant should not be permitted to change the value of 
E the consigned goods at his convenience and to his advantage. The bills 
produced by the appellant before the Trial Court to substantiate the 
value of the goods must be in existence at the time of booking the 
consignment. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why he declared 
Rs.25,000 as the value of goods at the time of booking against his claim 
of Rs.56,837.04 at the trial. There is no equity in the stand of the 
F appellant. The rule of 'fairplay in action' demands that the appellant be 
pinned-down to the valuation of the consigned goods declared by him 
voluntarily. [ 463E-G] 
Chuni Lal v. Governor General, A.I.R. 1949 Mad 754, approved. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 517 of 
1976. 
From the Judgment and Decree dated 24.7.1974 of the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court in Appeal No. 552 of 1970. 
H 
A. Subba Rao for the Appellant. 
LAKSHMI BANGLE STORES v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH, J.l 
459 
R.B. Datar, Rajendra Singhvi, B.K. Prasad and C.V.S. Rao for 
A. 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. Messrs Lakshmi Bangle Stores instituted a 
suit for damages

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.